2nd Amendment court battle

The whole purpose of the Second Amendment is to assure that no government can interfere with an individual's natural right to self-defense; self-defense against criminals and thugs and self-defense against foreign enemies and domestic tyrants. I have defended this truism publicly for over 30 years in books, lectures, op-eds, and broadcasts. Today, when I remind audiences that the right is a natural one and encompasses the moral authority to shoot a gun at the government when it has been taken over by tyrants, the audiences respond wildly; more so than I have ever seen in any public speech I have given or observed. The mood of the country has changed dramatically in 2009, and it is decidedly moving toward the Framers' view of the Constitution.

In constitutional parlance, the words "ancient", "fundamental", and "natural", when referring to rights of individuals, are interchangeable. They all encompass the idea that a given right, like thought, speech, worship, travel, privacy, or self-defense, are aspects of our humanity. These rights are not privileges that the government makes available with a license; they are a part of our humanity, as integral and vital as bodily parts, and they can only be taken away by a jury when we violate someone else's ancient, fundamental, or natural rights.

The Heller case has intentionally been misread by Progressives since the moment it came down. It was an enormous disappointment for them since they know that a disarmed populace has little choice but to obey a progressive tyrant. There is no question in my mind that Heller's intentional use several times of the word "ancient" to describe the right to keep and bear arms signaled the Court's determination that (a) the right existed long before the Constitution established the federal government, and (b) the right existed long before any governments came into being, and thus, (c) the right is natural to us and fundamental to our humanity. Therefore, it follows, that no government may interfere with it. The two federal appellate cases that question this were written by progressives with an anti-gun, Big Government agenda, and the Supreme Court will soon correct this.